Maintainability of rectification plea fails where the advocate lacked authority and the application was not filed by the appellants.

A rectification of mistake application was held not maintainable because it was not shown to have been filed by the appellants themselves and the advocate who presented it had no vakalatnama or authority letter on record. In the absence of proof of authorisation, the advocate could not validly contend that the earlier order suffered from a violation of provisions or had not been decided on merits. The challenge was therefore rejected and the application dismissed as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rectification of mistake application was maintainable when it was not filed by the appellants and the counsel who presented it was not shown to be authorised.

Analysis: The application was not on record as having been filed by the appellants themselves, and no vakalatnama or authority letter in favour of the advocate was found. In these circumstances, the advocate could not assert that the earlier order suffered from violation of provisions or that the matter had not been decided on merits. The challenge was therefore not maintainable.

Conclusion: The rectification of mistake application was dismissed as not maintainable.

---